PDA

View Full Version : Memo to M


09-28-2001, 03:22 AM
M is a poster who, like me, is willing to learn and listens to the opposite view. A rarity! This is the only reason that I go the extra mile and write this little brief on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.


1. The "front-line" states, i.e. Egypt, Syria and Jordan have formally recognized Israel's "right to exist" along time ago. In int'l relations, formal statements are all we have to go by. Because if we start talking about "true intentions" and saying "you're not honest", there will never be peace. (Note that it is the first time in history that a state has demanded assurances about its "right to exist". For the true meaning behind this specific request set forth by the U.S. and Israel to the Arabs is the acceptance of HOW Israel came to exist - not a guarantee for its "security", which is legitimate and often done in diplomacy. See Noam Chomsky's incisive analysis in http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c10-s16.html.)


2. Beyond the “front-line” there are Arab states who rattle lots of sabres, talk a big talk and support terrorism, such as Libya and Iraq. I fully support, and so do any reasonable man, all appropriate measures against those terrorists and the states that support them. These states are for all practical purposes irrelevant to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict – but Israel, conveniently, includes them in its demands for peace. “All or nothing”…


In the meantime, the PLO has formally recognized Israel’s right to exist, even abandoning the condition that Israel also recognizes the right of a Palestinian srtate to exist. This happened not last year but in 1988!

See http://www.palestine1.net/pal_plo_1.htm


The Israelis immediately countered that “Arafat is lying”, etc.


3. It has always been the objective of Israel to have the Palestinians, successively,

- Marginalized, then

- Radicalised, and then

- De-legitimised.

That is why they have sabotaged every opportunity for a real (and just) peace but instead have gone about their ways as the White Settlers of the old South Africa.


4. Let me give you another perspective about Terrorism. Suppose the United Nations send a neutral mediator to the Middle East and he starts taking some positions that the Palestinians do not like. One of Arafat’s lieutenants draws a gun and shoots him dead! Is that terrorism ? In my opinion, it is and very much so. And the killer should be punished or at the very least banned from any future Palestinian leadership position.


Well, read what happened to the killing of Count Bernadotte, the U.N. mediator, by Zionists and what happened to his killer. See how the Zionists themselves tell it in http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/bernplan.html


5. M stated that there were “at least a dozen terrorist attacks on Israel only last year”.


Yes, there are many, too many terrorist, murderous, hideous attacks against innocent Israeli citizens by fanatics from the other side. There are also killings in clashes between Zionist settlers and Palestinians, from both sides. Fair enough – and no one should ask “an eye for an eye”. But where are the numbers and where is the exposure and where is the condemnation of the killings of innocent Palestinians civilians by the fanatics of the other side, the Israeli Army and the settlers? We hear nothing of them in the West. These people do not matter. (And if a sane, moderate voice happens to rise from the Palestinian camp calling for a democratic, just solution to the issue, that voice gets smeared and ridiculed presto by the Zionists. See http://slate.msn.com/Assessment/99-10-01/Assessment.asp)


And the Palestinians realize at some point that THEY DO NOT MATTER!. That their lives and their deaths are irrelevant to the West. That their just struggle is futile and their future is something like the American buffalo. However, they are not stupid. They are mostly educated, intelligent and courageous. And some of them, those who break the threshold of desperation and humiliation, will play right at the hand of their opponents and resort to mindless violence, sometimes killing themselves too in the process , thus alienating the rest of the world to their cause.


We rightfully condemn without any qualification the murderous or terrorist acts of such people - but let’s not pretend that we are dumbfounded as to the causes behind it…

09-28-2001, 01:09 PM
Thanks, Cyrus. It's going to take me a while to get through that material, especially as I quickly perused part of Chomsky's analysis and saw that there were quite a number of pages. The last link you provided was a quick read however.


I do think it is important that the Palestinians get a homeland and I think this should be a priority of the U.N. It is easy to see why many of them feel great despair and frustration. It would probably be too much to expect at this point, until they do get a homeland, that they as a people would live and prosper in foreign lands as did the "wandering Jews" for many years through a commitment to education, hard work and a respect for shrewd business acumen. I think a homeland should be negotiated/bought for them with funds provided from the U.N. (which in turn are of course collected from the world's nations)


One thing disturbs me about Arafat's quoted statements: If he previously had believed Israel had no right to exist and should be destroyed, for him to truly change that position he should renounce it. However, at the bottom of the second segment of Chomsky's analysis, it says:


"In short, Arafat repeated the former PLO positions. The only changes were that whereas in January 1976 (and often since) the PLO adopted the wording of U.N. 242, endorsing the right of all parties "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries," Arafat now spoke of their right "to exist in peace and security"; the change is zero. As before, he insisted on the "qualification" that the Palestinians have the right of self-determination, clearly referring to "the State of Palestine" alongside of Israel. He refused to accept Israel's abstract "right to exist," on which the U.S. had insisted as the crucial point."


NMaybe this will be explained more fully as I more thoroughly read the analysis, but taken at face value it strikes me as rather dubious that he has renounced his previous goal ofthe destruction of Israel.

09-28-2001, 04:36 PM
Interesting link on that. I guess Bernadotte would have stood a better chance if he had exercised his right to have a gun. :-)